This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

Originally Posted by StillBallin75

By free-market, I am referring purely to the supply and demand dynamics of the private sector. Outsourcing a government job has little to do with the free market. The government is merely replacing its own employees with someone else's. It's still public-sector spending.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

There isn't enough room on this server to post the failures and problems with central-controlled government monopoly.

Monopoly government does everything poorly. Competing service providers product better, cheaper and more efficient products.

Wikipedia - Anarcho-capitalism

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way toacquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market. "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action. So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms, and vice versa.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

Originally Posted by Ikari

For the love of all that is holy....please everyone follow suit!

What difference does it make, exactly? Am I just dumb for thinking that there isn't really a substantial difference between the government doing this and a private contractor doing this, except for the fact that state governments get the feds off their back?

Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-14-12 at 08:59 PM.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

There isn't enough room on this server to post the failures and problems with central-controlled government monopoly.

Monopoly government does everything poorly. Competing service providers product better, cheaper and more efficient products.

Wikipedia - Anarcho-capitalism

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically beneficial, way toacquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market. "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action. So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like. The embrace of unfettered capitalism leads to considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and many social anarchists that view capitalism and its market as just another authority. Anti-capitalist anarchists generally consider anarcho-capitalism a contradiction in terms, and vice versa.

Most off the vets on this board are already familiar with what anarcho-capitalism is, thank you very much. Like I said above, there are many goods that the government can and should provide. There are others that are natural monopolies. For certain other functions of government, it is impractical to hand them over wholesale to the private sector - national security/defense is one such role.

Once again, simply substituting private contractors for federal government employees has little to do with the free market or anarcho-capitalism. That would be more like if the state and local governments allowed private entities to run and maintain airports - which this bill does not do.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

Why do we need any of this at all? Can't we go back to when they just waved the wand over you? No more body scans that cause cancer. No more pat downs that end up being sexual assault. The TSA has never caught one terrorist. This whole thing is nothing but taking freedom away from it's citizens.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

I love all the emotional "RAWR HATE TSA" posts without any actual attempt to understand what's being done here.

The allowance for airports to opt out and privatize the workforce does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a differnece in protocol or method in which screening will occur. Private Security in these situations must adhere to the same federal regulations regarding the screening of passengers. The only difference is that the hiring, managing, and personnel are all private contractors rather than federal employees. Your pat downs, body scans, shoes coming off, etc are going to be occuring whether its Random TSO or Random Security Guy that's manning the line.

Originally Posted by MrWonka

In fact, I would wager to you that within 10 years of today's date that stupid MAGA hat will be registered as a symbol of hate on par with a Swastika.

Re: TSA To Get The Boot - Free Market Beats Central Government Control

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

I love all the emotional "RAWR HATE TSA" posts without any actual attempt to understand what's being done here.

The allowance for airports to opt out and privatize the workforce does not in any way, shape, or form indicate a differnece in protocol or method in which screening will occur. Private Security in these situations must adhere to the same federal regulations regarding the screening of passengers. The only difference is that the hiring, managing, and personnel are all private contractors rather than federal employees. Your pat downs, body scans, shoes coming off, etc are going to be occuring whether its Random TSO or Random Security Guy that's manning the line.

The perception is that there's an overwhelming bureaucracy that is preventing the TSA from being able to effectively make common sense exceptions and from being able to punish / prevent violations of common decency with much effectiveness.
The other perception is that these private companies will be more responsive to these needs of their clients and the client's travelers.